Saturday, November 27, 2010

Thousands of Mexicans are dying each year so some Americans can have fun.There would be no narco-war in Mexico if Americans didn’t pay billions of dollars for recreational drugs.Everyone who buys illegal drugs is helping fund the slaughter of innocents in Mexico.It seems to me that that’s a lot worse than advocating deportation of illegal aliens.

Reading about the slow dissolution of the Mexican state in the MSM you’d have no clue that the money that fuels the private armies comes from Americans who buy drugs.Perhaps the silence is due to the liberal predilection for illegal drugs.When Al Franken--a Democrat Senator--can boast about his use of cocaine it’s clear that liberals don’t have a problem with breaking the law to get their drug of choice.

In any case I’ve yet to see any hand wringing by liberals over their complicity in the horror that’s going on in Mexico.It seems their compassion is only for Latinos in the US who may be able to vote for the candidates liberals favor.

To the extent that liberals have addressed the root cause of the Mexican crisis they tend to call for the legalization of drugs--usually just marijuana.The argument goes that if the US legalizes drugs then all drug related crime will go away.Presumably just as all organized crime went away after the repeal of Prohibition.

But even if that liberal meme du jour is valid clearly it’s wrong to buy drugs until they are legalized unless funding narco-terror in Mexico is considered to be ok.What is truly amazing, but sadly unsurprising, is the inconsistency of the liberal position.

While liberals boycott Nike and other companies for exploiting workers overseas they apparently don’t seem to see any problem with doing business with drug dealers. In the liberal world view under paying workers in the third world--even if the workers salaries are higher than what the workers could get from third world companies--is a horrible sin but killing mayors and policemen in Mexico in order to be able to ship drugs to the US is a reasonable business practice.

The liberal position is even more bizarre in that they continually portray themselves as the ones who care.In the lefts universe conservatives are for the financial exploitation of the world but liberals are motivated by universal brotherhood.Except when that interferes with what liberals want to do of course such as using drugs.Another example of that is that the same liberals who condemn the Catholic church for a small percentage of evil priests--as opposed to condemning the priests-- have no problem saying that Roman Polanski should be forgiven for molesting a child.

In fact the attitudes of American liberals on the drug war in Mexico fits the standard liberal playbook to a T.Liberals define culpability based on who the culprit is. It is impossible for a black man to be a racist but every white man is presumed racist.Illegal immigrants are forced to sneak into the US and hence can do no wrong.Blacks can riot when they don’t like a judicial ruling--i.e. the Rodney King case-- but can you imagine if whites had rioted when O.J. got off?In the case of Mexico the problem isn’t the massive funding that drug using liberals provide to the armies of narco terror, it’s the fact that the evil US won’t let any Mexican who wants to to hop onto the American welfare wagon.

Liberals have been the voice of “drugs are ok” in the US since the 1960’s. The root of modern liberalism--which bears little resemblance to classical liberalism-- was the drug culture of the 60’s that celebrated drug use and condemned soldiers. It’s time to call liberals to task for their support of the drug culture. It’s time to stand up for the innocent Mexicans that are killed every day to feed America’s drug habit. Imagine if the MSM and the ruling class talked about drugs the way they do about second hand smoke.

Liberals pull at the heartstrings of people in order to win their votes. Because the liberal position is generally simplistic it can be more easily packaged into a short phrase that can be repeated over and over until people absorb it without thinking.We need to turn the tables on liberals by holding them to task for the selfishness that lies at the heart of modern liberalism. We need to remind everyone that it’s the liberals unrelenting support of drug use that has established the monstrous drug-dealing establishment.If liberals were saying that we should legalize drugs but until then it’s wrong to buy illegal drugs they’d have a leg to stand on.But that’s not their position.How many news reports, movies, or TV shows have been made where using drugs is shown to be just fine and the cops are the bad guys?

Most Americans are saddened and worried about the mess in Mexico.They feel sorry for the many victims down there and they are worried about the violence spreading into America.Reminding the majority of Americans that it’s the liberals who, through their unending support of drug use, bear a significant responsibility for the drug wars will be yet another nail in the coffin of the chameleon that is modern liberalism.

Monday, November 22, 2010

Sadly I have to admit I live in California. I'm one of the California 16,632,748.8, the 40% who consistently vote against people like Jerry Brown, a hostage in la la land. Fortunately I was raised in the Midwest so I know what living in reality is like.

In reality you have to pay your bills. You don't expect other people to do that for you. But that's what California will be doing if it asks for a Federal Government bailout. Why should the folks in states where they elect reasonable, or at least fiscally responsible, politicians have to pay for the mistakes of California?

Sure if there's a big quake I'd expect all Americans to help us. Just as all American's help New Orleans. That's what makes America great. But the California disaster isn't an act of God it's an act of greedy liberal politicians who use taxpayer dollars to buy votes.

California pays state employees really well. Some of that is necessary given the cost of living out here but basically the State Legislature spent money like it was going out of style during the recent good economic times, when Republicans controlled the government. Unfortunately they weren't satisfied with spending money they had to commit to spending money in the future. When the recession hit--during Democrat control of the Congress-- California had lots of commitments and too little cash.

Of course since Democrats run the place the State governments response to this has been to try and raise taxes. To understand how the majority of Californians think consider this. A recent article in a major paper said that laying of government workers was bad because it increased unemployment! The author apparently lacks an understanding of the difference between jobs created by the economy and jobs created by taxing the economy.

The government never makes jobs. It just takes money from businesses that would make jobs that make sense and instead creates jobs that further politicians careers.

So much as it pains me to say this when Jerry Brown our once failed and now returned governor comes imperiously striding into DC asking for a bailout tell him he has to wash the dishes to pay the bill.

Saturday, November 20, 2010

Ah that pesky media. Always distorting things to justify their position. In reality what the Pope said in an interview was that someone who is very promiscuous, the Pope used a male prostitute as an example, who starts to use condoms is taking a first step towards moral actions. The Pope clearly says that using a condom is not morally acceptable but taking that first step is a good sign.

In my mind what the Pope said is equivalent to saying that a drug dealer who stopped selling heroin but still continued to sell cocaine and crystal meth was taking a step toward goodness. Saying that would not be condoning the sale of cocaine and crystal meth it would just be saying that stopping the sale of heroin would be a step in the right direction.

For a more detailed analysis , with quotes from the book, see the ever interesting Jimmy Akin at http://www.ncregister.com/blog/the-pope-said-what-about-condoms/

Friday, November 19, 2010

Thursday, November 11, 2010

In case you haven't heard Amazon was selling a how to guide for child molesters. When they were told about it they initially said that to not sell it would be censorship and they said they planned to keep selling it. A huge uproar developed and the book may or may not have been withdrawn--I'm not about to go searching on Amazon for a how to guide to molesting kids. According to the author Amazon is reconsidering if they should sell the book. In any case Amazon hasn't issued any sort of apology or discussion of how it will avoid a similar disaster in the future.

I strongly recommend you tell Amazon that you're going to avoid doing business with them until they come out and say that they will not sell literature that encourages raping children. I went to my Amazon account and sent a message to customer service. You can also find a page on this on Facebook and there is at least one petition out there you can sign online.

Friday, November 5, 2010

When I was in high school back in the 1970's I made a major discovery about liberals. They think they know more than the rest of us and that they have been anointed by God...er evolution to run the lives of us mere mortals.We can see that now in the aftermath of the recent election. On the most obvious level the liberal superiority complex, and its racist element, can be seen in the passing of a law by the city of San Francisco banning toys with "unhealthy" meals. Who do those stupid parents think they are? Interestingly one of the rationales for this law was the epidemic of child obesity, "...especially in minorities...". I guess liberals think that non-whites are too stupid to decide what their children should eat.On a less obvious level the liberal world view can be seen by the way they spin the election. It wasn't that Americans didn't like what liberals have done but that Americans just didn't understand how wonderful the liberals have been to us. We didn't vote Democrat because we're too stupid to understand the complex reasoning that supports the liberal agenda. But the president has made it clear that he got the message. He'll spend more time explaining to us why we're wrong.Out here in la la land--California-- the San Jose Mercury News has an editorial that admonishes Obama for being too upset about the election and then tells him to revive his agenda. I suspect if the Republicans had been as massively repudiated as the Democrats just were the Merc--no they don't take pay to fight wars, they fight for liberalism for free--wouldn't be telling them to keep on keeping on. But being liberal means never having to doubt you're right so good liberals like the Merc know that they just have to continue to fix the sad broken lives those of us who believe in individual liberty, traditional morality, and fiscal responsibility live.

Friday, October 8, 2010

Thursday, October 7, 2010

I was out by the San Francisco bay taking photos the other day. There wasn't much to take photos of, I've been to the same place many times, though there had been a nice low flying turkey vulture.

I spotted a blue heron by one of the ponds. This in itself was unusual, I've never seen a blue heron at that pond before, so I maneuvered to get a better shot. As I walked around to get a better shot I mentioned to the Lord--I try and pray a bit when I'm wandering around taking photos--that it would be great if the heron would catch a big fish because I'd never managed to get a photo of a bird with a big fish.

Lo and behold just when I got fairly close to the bird it darted its head underwater and came up with a big fish. To me this is one of the examples of how Christ is really here for us every second of every day. Here's the picture.

Sunday, October 3, 2010

The liberals are in a tizzy because a high priced lawyer who has previously used false information to trash a republican before an election says that Meg Whitman, running for the governor of California, knowingly employed an illegal alien.

Any idiot can tell that the charge is bogus. Why? Well Whitman paid this person $48k/year. Who knowingly hires an illegal and then pays them as much as you'd pay a legal worker.

Interestingly enough Whitman did fire the person when Whitman discovered that the person had used a false social security number.

The Dems are saying that they have a smoking gun. A doc from the government saying there is some question about the workers social security number. On that document Whitmans husband apparently wrote a note asking the worker to clear up the confusion. In reality what that shows is that Mr. Whitman was confused and naturally assumed that the person who they'd been employing was not a liar. So in the Dems world assuming people you know and who've been working for you aren't liars is evil. Of course Dems object to checking the papers of people stopped by the police to see if they're citizens.

Once again we see that the only sin liberals recognize is hypocrisy. If Jerry Brown was found to be employing an illegal alien there would have been no uproar since he's a fan of illegals. Similarly none of the Dems who are attacking Whitman was upset when Collin Powell said he employes illegals.

Wednesday, September 22, 2010

Tuesday, September 21, 2010

In the typical liberal view of the world the worst possible sin is hypocrisy. Liberals have managed to inoculate themselves against charges of hypocrisy by not expounding any moral principles. Hence when Bill Clinton cheated on his wife it wasn’t hypocritical, and hence he wasn’t a bad person, because he’d never condemned adultery but when a televangelist was caught cheating on his wife he was guilty of hypocrisy and hence a bad person. By elevating the evil of hypocrisy over the evil of the actual acts, ranging from tax evasion to adultery, liberals have their cake and eat it too. They can condemn conservatives for pretty much anything-- conservatives are after all hypocrites because they didn’t live up to conservative moral values-- while excusing liberals--who do not have moral codes that require fidelity or honesty-- who do the exact same thing.

The GZM(Ground Zero Mosque) or now Park51 controversy has finally given conservatives an opportunity to call out liberals for committing the liberals definition of hypocrisy. For decades liberals have pushed the Politically Correct(PC; sorry Dell) concept. The core of PC is that espousing certain positions is hurtful to others because the very concepts are odious. Such concepts--say ending Affirmative Action-- must not be discussed because of the pain and suffering such a discussion would have on others. Much like an earlier and more gentile era’s prohibition on burping at the dinner table PC is liberalisms attempt to prevent innocents from being offended.

But what is the primary argument against GZM? Is it not that building the Mosque at the site where 3000 Americans died due to Islamic terrorists is a great offense against all Americans? Are not those who stand against a structure that could be construed by people of ill will, such as those who cheered in the streets of Cairo when they heard of 9/11, as a symbol of Islamic triumphalism merely standing shoulder to shoulder with their liberal brothers in solidarity to protect innocents from being offended?

But then aren’t those liberals who support the GZM, none of which seem to be running in vulnerable election races this year, being hypocritical by violating the PC standard which they always fly over the American flag? Liberals who support the GZM are clearly being insensitive to the feelings of the 70% of Americans who find an Islamic shrine so near to the site of the mass murder of Americans by Islamic terrorists. Hence the liberals are, by their own definition, guilty of hypocrisy because they are violating the core belief of PC which liberals never cease extolling.

But wait there’s more, no not a ceramic knife. Back in the 1980’s and 1990’s there was a controversy about Crosses erected at the Nazi death camp at Auschwitz. The Roman Catholic Church supported the removal of the crosses because they offended Jews even though according to the Auschwitz-Birkenau web site at least 150,000 Catholics were killed at Auschwitz. During the Auschwitz controversy liberals were very much against the Crosses because they offended Jewish sensibilities. However now those same liberals seem to have no problem with ignoring the feelings of the vast majority of Americans. Clearly it’s hypocritical, by liberal standards, to condemn Crosses in Poland because they offend Jews while supporting a Mosque in America even though it offends everyone.

And if you order right now I’ll throw in at no extra charge the argument of hypocrisy from the perspective of decency. We’ve all heard how the talking heads of the MSM and the Democrats moan over the loss of decency and civility in public discourse. Of course calls for a more civil debate usually occur right after conservatives are compared to lower primates or Nazi’s. But nonetheless liberals do continually call for more decency in the political sphere. Yet what is decent about forcing the majority of Americans to accept a tall gleaming tower proclaiming the wonders of the Islamic faith within blocks of where faithful adherents of Islam murdered 3000 innocents? Just as a Crucifix in a jar of urine is declared by liberals to be “speech” protected by the First Amendment surely the GZM is a form of “speech” which in the minds of many is clearly not decent. We’re told by liberals that perception is reality so that if a member of a minority group thinks he’s been discriminated against he has in fact been discriminated against no matter what the facts of the case may be. Hence those who believe that the “speech” embodied by the 15 story paean to Islam must by liberal standards be told that their complaint is true; their suffering real. Yet liberals denounce those whose pain liberals own core beliefs hold to be valid. Is that not hypocrisy of the highest order?

In the end this is one controversy where liberals can’t really have it both ways, not that they won’t try. The issue is not about religious freedom. After all no one thought that Catholic Church’s support of removing the Crosses from Auschwitz was due to a deep seated desire by the Pope to squash religious liberty in Poland. The issue is true compassion for those who have suffered a tragic loss. Three thousand Americans died on 9/11 and Americans are a very caring group of people. Free speech may allow someone to put up a statue to Ho Chi Minh next to the graves of Americans who died in Vietnam but decency does not. Similarly decency--the glue that binds the disparate social threads of the American body politic together-- does not allow the construction of a 15 story Mosque near ground zero.

Jerry Brown is not doing his job of defending the people of California’s vote on Prop. 8 because he says that he believes it’s unconstitutional. Last I heard deciding if something is unconstitutional is up to the courts not the Attorney General. Brown is effectively saying he’ll only enforce the laws he personally believes to be “constitutional”. Talk about extreme positions! What right does he have to put himself above the law? Suppose the Supreme Court upholds Prop 8? Is Brown going to say “sorry”? Coming from a lawyer who sees nothing wrong with using technicalities to get drug dealers off the hook Brown’s position seems to say that his personal opinion not his duty to the voters is what matters.

Follow me on Twitter

About Me

i was found under a rock by a wandering tribe of Albanian nuclear physicists. Used as a radioactive source for a series of illegal interstellar rocket tests during my youth i finally escaped by imitating a government bureaucrat and boring my captors into a coma. i made my fortune by suing the developer of the pet rock for copying my personality. Financially independent i settled down to a life of leisure in the American Midwest. Unfortunately i lost my wealth through a bad investment in a biotechnology company which was attempting to develop a mouse which looked like Elvis. Forced to wander the world i started taking odd jobs as a lowly computer programmer.